create_page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must convey safety and mutation context. It states that a page is created and returns a Page object, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or error conditions. This is adequate for a straightforward create operation but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is tightly structured with a one-sentence summary, an Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant content. It is easy to scan and digest.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 11 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and states the return object, making it reasonably complete. It also clarifies the critical scoping decision. Minor gaps exist around allowed integer values for access, color format, and internal structure of dictionary parameters like view_props, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description's Args section is the sole parameter documentation. It provides meaningful semantics for all 11 parameters, including the key behavior of project_id ('Omit to create a workspace page'), format hints for archived_at (ISO 8601) and description_html (HTML), and type for access (integer). Some descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'Page name'), but overall it compensates well for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Create a page.' and immediately clarifies the two scope variants (project page vs workspace-level page) based on project_id. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from sibling tools, none of which create pages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: creating a page, with explicit guidance on using project_id for project pages or omitting it for workspace pages. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but no sibling tool offers page creation, so this is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.